Breaking the chains, winning the games, and saving Western Civilization.

Thursday, April 18, 2013

Feminist regrets women's rights

Judith Grossman belatedly discovers that the costs of the cause she has so energetically supported are being paid by her son:

I am a feminist. I have marched at the barricades, subscribed to Ms.
magazine, and knocked on many a door in support of progressive
candidates committed to women's rights. Until a month ago, I would have
expressed unqualified support for Title IX and for the Violence Against
Women Act.

But that was before my son, a senior
at a small liberal-arts college in New England, was charged—by an
ex-girlfriend—with alleged acts of "nonconsensual sex" that supposedly
occurred during the course of their relationship a few years earlier.

What followed was a nightmare—a fall through Alice's looking-glass
into a world that I could not possibly have believed existed, least of
all behind the ivy-covered walls thought to protect an ostensible
dedication to enlightenment and intellectual betterment....

I fear that in the current climate the goal of "women's rights," with
the compliance of politically motivated government policy and the tacit
complicity of college administrators, runs the risk of grounding our
most cherished institutions in a veritable snake pit of injustice—not
unlike the very injustices the movement itself has for so long sought to
correct. Unbridled feminist orthodoxy is no more the answer than are
attitudes and policies that victimize the victim.

I have pointed out for years that "women's rights" are totally incompatible with the rights that are the foundation of Western civilization: the right to life, the right to liberty, the right to property, and the rule of law. Unfortunately, most women are absolutely unwilling to consider the matter rationally until a man they love is caught up in the chaotic legal maelstrom created by the so-called rights of women.

I feel sorry for the son. But it would be no more than his mother deserves if he was kicked out of school, forced to register as a sex offender, and rendered unemployable by the very regime she worked so hard to impose.

54 comments:

With more and more women waking up to smell the coffee, feminism will be licked within our lifetime, I'm 100% sure. It's just a small blip on the radar of history. Just another goofy, unnatural, error-ridden ideology that has risen and ultimately must fall.

Big Bill, the question to ask is why it took the ex-girlfriend three years to come forward with this. And "non-consensual" is a weasel word to mean anything from outright rape to "I just wasn't 100% feeling like it right then but I went ahead because I felt obligated" to "I was all about it THEN, but I regretted it afterwards."

This sounds like the standard script for a girl trying to rewrite her history to make herself look more pure than she was.

Disgusting, and this poor kid is going to have this following him around for the foreseeable future.

And this story - man-fault divorce without the marriage part. Or "sexual harassment".

"Women's Rights" can mean two discretely different things which is used by those arguing (similar to the new atheists when talking about science and evidence and the like). The first is that all the liberties and freedoms in the constitution and the rule of law and equality under the law should apply between men and women just like between black and white, jew and muslim and christian and atheist. That under the law (coercion by government), both are held to the same identical standard, rights, but also responsibility.

The other meaning (the superset is "Minority Rights") is that there needs to be special privilege for "victim classes", so things like the "If I change my mind after two years..." rape charge ends up in a guilty until proven (though you can't prove it under the rules) innocent situation.

The former definition begins to die when government goes out of its normal bounds of being a forum for settling disputes and handling crimes of fraud, stealing, or violence. When it starts doing punitive taxation, subsidy, and regulation, it becomes a game to see who can insure they are treated better - and there are many opportunities at various levels of corruption, but those are echoes. The law itself has become corrupt.

She had no sympathy for men who suffered through this kind of thing before; it's only once it happened to HER (vicariously) that she starts to care about the injustice. Natural, maybe, but even so, this is why women should not vote.

feministconservativesecular humynist, pro-Israel, feminist, and fiscally conservative Arianna PattekMy first week of workPosted on June 8, 2012 by feministconservative

Like I said in my last post, I’m working in my school’s admissions office for the time being. This is a great opportunity for me, and I’m so glad to have the ability to decide who will come in and who won’t. We are here to make future leaders of America and the world, and as such we have the responsibility do keep those who would make the world a worse place far away, while admitting those who have potential to use their abilities to improve the world.

For instance I can’t tell you how many applications I saw that were just dripping with white male privelege. Any of those that I saw basically went straight to the garbage can regardless of how good their qualifactions were. If I saw an application from a white male that basically was just good test scores, and activities like chess club or math club or what not then it shows me this person is not interested in a diverse environment. Obviously he made no effort in integrating with minorities or to sympathize with them and is counting on male privelege to get in. So that kind of application should get ignored. In their place I admitted a female student. This goes double especially for math/science majors.

Another time this I had an application for what sounded like an arab male who wanted to study computer science. On paper he looked good enough, decent above average scores, and such. But I checked facebook and sure enough on his wall I came came upon a particularly hateful post about Israel supposedly not having a right to exist. I promptly trashed the application and sent out a rejection letter.

The lesson here is that people are multi-dimensional. We can’t boil people down to numbers or statistics, or reject people based on the color of their skin. I’m happy to say that I approved nearly 90% of all female minority and 80% of all (white female applicants especially if the girls want to study math or science) while rejecting over 50% of white males this week and hope this trend holds out.

This comment here is the best example of female solipsism I've encountered in awhile:

"I feel sorry for the son. But it would be no more than his mother deserves if he was kicked out of school, forced to register as a sex offender, and rendered unemployable by the very regime she worked so hard to impose."

Her son may be labeled a sex offender and kicked out of school. Does she have any idea how that would impact HIS life? No, not really. It's all about her and what "his mother deserves".

After reading both the original post and the linked article, I am struck by how this woman never fully reached the conclusion that she should renounce feminism as a lifestyle. She simply wanted to protect her son, but without actually declaring that feminism was itself the problem (she only focused on "fairness"). If it were someone else’s son, I doubt her article would have been written. This, of course, places a feminist in a place of hypocrisy for criticizing feminism and challenging a feminist entity (the college tribunal) while still essentially being a feminist (as a powerful female attorney).

Even more, feminists have often complained about the "male privilege" and yet this woman's defending her son is supporting the very accusation of privilege feminists have claimed to be dismantling.

If this woman were a true feminist, she would have disowned and disinherited her son and allowed him to suffer what fate was visited upon him. Politics and maternal instincts clash loudly.

What followed was a nightmare—a fall through Alice's looking-glass into a world that I could not possibly have believed existed, least of all behind the ivy-covered walls thought to protect an ostensible dedication to enlightenment and intellectual betterment....

What's interesting here is that she should have known. Feminists haven't kept their victories in this area a secret; they've bragged left and right about them. As a self-professed feminist, she's probably cheered as other evil men were brought to their knees by kangaroo courts, as in the Duke lacrosse case. So it's disingenuous of her to act like she doesn't know this was going on; she just never minded it before because it only hurt Men, not Her Man.

At least now we know what it'll take for women to reconsider feminism: every woman has to be personally harmed by it in a specific, undeniable way. That's all.

"I have marched at the barricades"? Who the hell does she think she is?

Maybe the barricades they use to keep anti-abortion protesters far away from abortion mills, and she was on the other side? I dunno. I doubt her womanhood has ever caused her to be barricaded from anything, unless she was trying to play in the Masters.

After reading both the original post and the linked article, I am struck by how this woman never fully reached the conclusion that she should renounce feminism as a lifestyle. She simply wanted to protect her son, but without actually declaring that feminism was itself the problem...

This is really just another example of the gamma fallacies from a couple of recent threads. "Excluders are evil" misses the point that someone has to be excluded, has to be the "out" group. Feminists don't realize what that means until someone they care about is excluded.

But rabbits - gamma or distaff - will always claim any problems are limited to one specific warren, that they aren't intrinsic to the very concept of living in a warren.

She had no sympathy for men who suffered through this kind of thing before; it's only once it happened to HER (vicariously) that she starts to care about the injustice. Natural, maybe, but even so, this is why women should not vote.

Agreed.

It's rare for a woman to understand and care about something on principle. And while it's no doubt tempting for some on our side to celebrate winning an ally, I'm always a little leery of such changes of heart, because, as you said, the suffering of others meant nothing to her prior to her vicarious experience. All it might take is another more powerful motive to cause her sympathies to run in yet another direction.

What I don't understand is how any of this kangaroo court isn't subject to libel suits?

Perhaps not libel, but there are other ways you can sic lawyers on these kangaroo courts and prevail. Not long ago, a woman was interviewed on The Dr. Laura Show, because her son was going through the exact same thing (don't think it was the same woman; she didn't identify herself as a lawyer or a feminist). She immediately lawyered-up, went on the offensive, and the school was forced to back down. IIRC, they were going after the accuser next, which is precisely what should happen to discourage false accusations.

She immediately lawyered-up, went on the offensive, and the school was forced to back down. IIRC, they were going after the accuser next, which is precisely what should happen to discourage false accusations.

After reading both the original post and the linked article, I am struck by how this woman never fully reached the conclusion that she should renounce feminism as a lifestyle. She simply wanted to protect her son, but without actually declaring that feminism was itself the problem (she only focused on "fairness").

Such things are also why the federal government has to control everything and infect state governments. The liberty project in NH is one thing, but imagine a flyover state enclave that returned to traditional values of the constitution and family, it would rapidly overtake the surrounding states and displace the culture of death.

The catastrophe of feminism was done in one generation and can be undone in one, but reading the Game blogs, the white Christians are more interested in complaining about Islam and immigrants than finding mates and repopulating the genome.

What is the term, what do they do over what do they say?

Is it the first derivative of the femperative, or is it that hamster in a suit and carrying a briefcase racing with rats is still a hamster?

Remember this the next time you hear a woman say how women are "naturally empathic" or "empathize better than men" - combine that with women always mean the opposite of what they say and you understand that there's a natural female narcissism and selfishness. This was the first time she thought by advancing her bra-burning cause that there could be anyone but a nameless, faceless person victimized by another resource stripper needing to earn her sisterhood victimhood card?

Remember this the next time you hear a woman say how women are "naturally empathic" or "empathize better than men" ...

Women are highly empathetic towards that which they love, which is why the plight of this woman's son was enough to at least partially overcome her feminist ideology. But as Nietzsche pointed out, women are capable only of love, and in a woman's love is injustice and blindness towards all that she does not love.

I'll probably continue to disagree with you on this, but we're probably saying the same thing talking past each other. In Vox Popoli fashion, if we first turn to the definition of empathy:

"the intellectual identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another."

I believe my point is, like most people, but especially most women, it is a foreign and strange idea to ponder being in the other person's shoes rather. (I've never heard a man apart from a politician actively courting the women's vote talk about how great an empathizer he is...I can't name a woman I've talked to in real life who hasn't at one time or another tried to excuse emotionality by claiming to be particularly skilled at feeling the other position, then proceeded to be a selfish, spoiled child within a very short while.)

I'm still not certain from her reading that she is considering things from her son's perspective -- it wasn't her son's nightmare; it was her nightmare through the looking glass; it is the defense of the legal institutions that she's made her life career out of -- she still is not actually empathizing -- she's just been jarred awake. This could be the inciting incident of a journey of coming to understand how the shoe feels on the other foot. Her interests are just now aligned with her son's as, in particular, she is his quasi-lawyer in the whole proceeding.

She simply wanted to protect her son, but without actually declaring that feminism was itself the problem (she only focused on "fairness").

Reminds me of the socialists who say socialism didn't fail in the USSR (or elsewhere); it just wasn't done properly.

She's not ready to see that what happened to her son is the end goal of the feminism she professes -- what happens when feminism is enacted by the book -- so she has to think it's been corrupted or subverted somehow. It's a start, though.

The less rational a person is the less likely they are to understand the consequences to their actions. At extreme levels of irrationality we see people who believe they exist within a vacuum. That actions have no consequences and desire is the only requisite. The future minded must constantly grapple with the fact that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

What this woman didn't understand was that by expressing female privilege that she would castrate her son. Women are learning this as their sons are in a state of perpetual childhood, stuck in dependency and a drain on the single mother's income.

Martin Luther King Jr. said that no oppressor ever willingly surrenders their power over the oppressed. The oppressed must demand it, must take it. When women protested for their "liberation" there was no counter protest. The voice of the opposition was silent as men leapt to do their bidding. How could an oppressed group have little or no resistance? Do we see the same thing with men's rights?

The personal is the political and now that women face the financial and romantic consequences of their actions they're beginning to understand that they do not exist in a vacuum. Their son's suicide, false rape charge, joblessness are the consequence. Their daughters pregnancy, spinsterhood, and anxiety and depression is a consequence. As a wise woman once said, "We can evade reality but we can't evade the consequences of reality."

" This, of course, places a feminist in a place of hypocrisy for criticizing feminism and challenging a feminist entity (the college tribunal) while still essentially being a feminist (as a powerful female attorney)."

Feminism - I've never been wrong, just had bad information! Pushed on me because men are so unfair! YOU just don't understand what it means to be me!

It's also been my experience that women are better at empathy or at least better at expressing empathy. I know that my experiences growing up have made me more sensitive to people with rough childhoods - to the point (and I think this ties in with Stickwick's point) that I am sometimes concerned that I'm giving folks a pass or giving into their need for drama by sympathizing instead of seeking to strengthen them by sharing what I've learned.

When it comes to general community, the women who sit around clucking about pregnancy or marriage or what have you are often engaged in a sort of empathy. Of course I come from a Bible Belt community that appears (from what I read on the manosphere) to have an unusually high concentration of rational women. The most un-housewifely mom I know has never said a disparaging word about her husband or kids in my hearing. In other words - YMMV.

So, pushing relentlessly for false rape laws that allow women to do this to men, while simultaneously shouting down and shaming any opposition = "a nightmare [that she] could not possibly have believed existed".

She gets 1 point for recognizing there's a problem, 1 point for identifying the root cause.She loses 1 point for failing to reference any other boys who have gone through the same thing, 1 point for only defending her son and 1 point for failing to state specifically needs to change to help fix the problem.Overall score: -1 point.Every woman I know talks up gender quotas until it's their son/husband/male relative that loses out because of it.Empathy as far as I can see (I just can't see past my front gate).I work with a woman who have the most flexible work arrangement of anyone, she's always pushing for more, yet she's forever committing her male colleagues (me included) to working weekends even though she doesn't have the authority. Don't tell me that women have got more empathy, because it is the male managers that check what's going on in other people's lives and if work is negatively impacting that.This woman doesn't know anything about me, yet I know all of her hobbies because she delights in telling everyone everything she's doing.

It's also been my experience that women are better at empathy or at least better at expressing empathy

No, women are not better at empathy. Women are better at imagining what they might be feeling in the situation the other person is in, but they are abysmal at actually recognizing what the other person is really feeling.

They're too busy projecting their own emotions onto someone else to pay attention to the actual emotions of the other person.

I'm betting we'll see an outraged response from the feminist blogosphere. This article is too damming to go unchallenged.

Any sightings yet? Those would be fun to read.

She loses 1 point for failing to reference any other boys who have gone through the same thing

She doesn't reference any specifically, but she does say "Across the country and with increasing frequency, innocent victims of impossible-to-substantiate charges are afforded scant rights to fundamental fairness and find themselves entrapped in a widening web of this latest surge in political correctness." I think that's enough to return that point to her.

Natalie -- It's also been my experience that women are better at empathy or at least better at expressing empathy

it hasnt been your "experience," it's merely been your received propaganda, a delusion designed for you to embrace and enjoy

women (and their government, skools, and Medea) are better at TALKING (endlessly) about how empathetic they are

men are far better at BEING empathetic, as Lawyer Judy the hypocrite and son-abuser illustrates

Judith isnt a woman, she's a Gross Man, a pseudo male set up in power by Satan and his institutions specifically to degrade and destroy maleness

ive been listening for half a century to delusional, spoiled brat females insisting to one another how Nurturing and Empathetic they are

it's just another lie concerning a female superiority that doesnt exist, except in their own hothouse hiveminds

telling females the truth -- that they ARENT the Empathetic, kindhearted darlings they envision themselves to be, is verbal harrassment and a hate crime

Judge Judy the Gross Man saw "her" son subjected to merely a taste of the gynogulag, but did she extend her vaunted Female Empathy to the REST of male humanity, that she and her ssisters crushed underfoot for fifty years?

probly not eh?

... bc her trumpeted Female Empathy doesnt exist, except marginally towards her own son, and only then with the greatest reluctance, and without renunciation of her self-serving gynocracy, which is solipsistically pathological -- the exact opposite of empathy

Judith wants to be both Judith, and a pseudo-masculine Gross Man, leaving "her" son (and eveybody elses) to be . . . what exactly? certainly not actual MEN, but instead whatever Judge Judy and her United Sisterhood decide and demand, even to the destruction of her own bloodline

i guess women really are more empathetic, if empathetic means reptilian

The rest of us have boys we're trying to raise in this screwed up system. I have zero sympathy for her. She just spent 50 years sneering at us traditionalists, and now she gets that our arguments are not without merit. It's a little late for that, dear...

It's always the revolutionaries who get lined up against the wall and shot first. I have no sympathy for them, and in fact will be buying a lot of popcorn to enjoy the show over the next few years.